DDS's are also a part of that public and are entitled to the same rights and benefits as Social Security district office personnel who are frequently working just across the street. The Social Security Disability Insurance program has been a good one but needs attention soon before "dry rot" begins. Federalization of DDS's would provide the infusion of new staff and new ideas that would assure a self-renewal.

I wish that I knew how to better describe the apprehension that I have for the future of this program if left in its present form. I would not be so presumptuous as to suggest that this Committee explore the sensitive areas of why States responded as they did to the staff questionnaire, however, I would submit that there is much to be learned if a more in-depth analysis could be made of how State agencies really feel about their no-name position between Federal and State administrative levels of government. I believe that there exists at the present time the greatest potential for managing a large claims load in the most efficient manner that has ever existed in the history of the disability program. This is true because of a strong nucleus of experienced management staff and a large reservoir of newly trained professional and technical staff in the State agencies. We are better able to accept new challenges now than we have ever been in our history. How this force is deployed will ultimately determine the success of the disability programs. Many of us believe that now is the time to bring the DDS's into the mainstream of Federal administration. We frankly believe that many of the proposals for alleviating an unfortunate situation are merely adding to the complexities of the system and not attending to the basic problem of a lack of a central system with its accompanying uniformity. In spite of the excellent results seen in a few DDS's, both the Bureau of Disability Insurance and the CSAVR have proven themselves incapable of effecting any really significant administrative changes in those DDS's where substantive changes have been found desirable. Only through single authority control can effective administration be assured and the public is entitled to nothing less.

Mr. BURKE. Mr. Pickle?

Mr. PICKLE. I would like to ask if you had heard my question on the preceding panel with respect to the possibility of reorganizing our whole appeals structure.

Mr. LEFLER. Yes, sir, I did. I think there are possibilities there. I have no specific recommendations in mind. I do intend to lean toward the closed record concept and would encourage refilings in State agencies, because it is my view that a claim moves more expeditiously in a State agency than it does in BHA. The State examiner has medical resources on a daily basis.

Mr. PICKLE. And that moves more quickly?

Mr. LEFLER. Yes, sir, it would result in more refillings, but it would avoid the waits we now have.

Mr. PICKLE. Do you have an opinion about whether you would upgrade the examiners, the hearing examiners, as a means to get additional personnel quickly?

Mr. LEFLER. I did not research that, but I have an opinion on it. My opinion would be that those people should be entitled to the same level as ALJ's are in the rest of the Federal service. I think it is an unconscionable thing to update one branch of the government at the expense of other agencies, which are the State agencies.

Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to ask permission to welcome Mr. Phillips to our committee. I wasn't here, but in another conference, when he gave his testimony. I am reading it now. I would like to greet him officially.

Mr. BURKE. Yes. We are glad to have Mr. Phillips testify.
Do you place a lot of blame at the State level?

Mr. LEFLER. Yes; I think the State administration is very cumbersome and slow to react to the problems we have. I don't say that for my own State, I might add, because we do move claims quickly. There

have been times when I have been in the State that we had problems and weren't able to move quickly, but we did incorporate the SSI program very expeditiously, if I may say so.

Mr. BURKE. Are there further questions?

The committee appreciates your appearance.
Mr. LEFLER. Thank you.

Mr. BURKE. Our next witness is Mr. William A. Vollmer. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM A. VOLLMER, CHIEF, DISABILITY DETERMINATION BUREAU, REHABILITATION SERVICES DIVISION, HELENA, MONT.

Mr. VOLLMER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is William A. Vollmer. I am the Disability Determination Bureau Chief in the State of Montana.

I appear here as an independent witness. I have no national affiliation with any group. I have been assured that I speak for many of the independents that are not affiliated.

I am reminded of the notice on the corporation bulletin board which said: "The objective of all dedicated company employees should be to thoroughly analyze all situations, anticipate all problems prior to their occurrence, and have answers to those problems when called upon." However, when you are up to your neck in alligators, it is difficult to remember that your initial objective was to drain the swamp.

I hope we can all agree that our initial obiective in the administration of the disability programs under social security is to serve the claimants in the best manner we know how. This includes the quality and timeliness of disability decisions, the protection of his rights, and economical administration.

Let me deviate from my prepared statement for a minute. I have crossed the country twice in the last 2 weeks. I have had occasion to speak with young people sitting on airplanes. They have a very concerted and very dedicated feeling that the trust funds under disability are not going to be there when they get ready to use them.

I believe we must address the economical administration part of this concept very closely, and I would like to have a recommendation reemphasized that the workings of the actuarial consultant be reviewed again in order to determine to try to see what can be done to alleviate the minds of those that believe that there is not going to be any social security trust funds when it comes time for them to apply for them.

Confusion exists in the minds of claimants from the very beginning of the application process in a district office. We have a super communication problem with the claimants and taxpayers we are serving. We have an even greater communication problem within the existing State-Federal structure of Bureau of Disability Insurance and the State DDS components.

If you don't believe me, check the Survey of State Disabiilty Agencies under the Social Security and SSI programs dated August 1, 1975. By federalizing DDS components and concentrating duties and responsibilities for disability development and adjudication, we would bridge many of the communication gaps. By closing these gaps, per

haps we would begin treating the cause of claimant dissatisfaction rather than treating the symptoms precipitated by the current system. This series of hearings concerns primarily appeals procedure legislation. Some of the legislation appears on the surface as positive solutions. However, when examined in depth it appears only to melt the tip of the proverbial iceberg. At the BHA level we are discussing wide sweeping changes and procedures for less than 5 percent of all claimants applying for disability benefits.

The applicability of the Administrative Procedure Act to supplemental security income disability hearings has to be resolved in favor of the claimant. Place yourself in a claimant's position wherein you have filed concurrent disability claims, only now to have to pursue two separate hearings, one before a title XVI hearing examiner and the other before a title II administrative law judge.

You, as that claimant, should have no less rights than some powerful corporation like Northwest Airlines asking relief from some other regulatory agency, which permits your claim to be heard before an administrative law judge in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. By legislation you would be assisting in alleviating a very significant communications gap among claimants, as well as eliminating a time-consuming hardship in terms of administrative manpower. It is even questioned by some as to whether the Administrative Procedure Act applies if an initial decision has been rendered by a State agency.

If the magnitude and impact of the disability decision comes under the Administrative Procedure Act requiring review by an administrative law judge, then it follows that DDS personnel doing the lower level decisions should be federalized to insure equal pay for equal work. I believe it is essential in the consideration of this committee as to whether or not the APA applies. But whether it does apply or doesn't apply, it applies to both the title II and the title XVI disability programs, so that you remove the administrative nightmare of a claimant having to proceed through two separate entities as far as getting a final decision.

Whether it is all one way or all the other, I think it would be best for the claimant, and not split as it is now.

The informal remand procedure currently being carried out administratively is a positive development. The screening criteria seems to be effective. This represents again an additional workload for the DDS and serves further reasons for federalization.

The face-to-face interview at the reconsideration level would assist the claimant in having a better understanding as to why the claim was denied initially and without question would assist in closing evidential gaps. This would permit a better decision to be rendered at the reconsderation level. Likewise, the idea of the personal conference as part of the due process requirement is positive in perfecting the disability claim. Whether this process will reduce the number of appeals is unknown-I would anticipate an increase.

From the experience in our State and from the due process investigation now going on this is likely. In either of these situations it is essential that a disability specialist, an employee of socal security, should be discussing the claimant's social security or SSI disability

The majority of all reconsideration decisions are completed in 90 days. However, I am opposed to time limits at either the reconsideration level or appeals level. There is no way we can put time limits in our requests to the medical community. This is an approach that would seriously disrupt our medical relationships. The other factor for an unusual delay in a claim is usually the lack of claimant's cooperation. Does this legislation imply that we will be rewarding a claimant because he has purposely delayed development on his claim?

If we are truly sincere in agreeing that our initial objectives include first, quality and timeliness of disability decision at whatever level; second, protection of individual claimant rights, whether in benefit status or not; and third, economical administration-then we must address the solution of insuring that communication gaps are closed by streamlining the total adjudication process by the congressional action of federalizing the State DDS components.

That concludes my statement. I do have an attachment that I would like to have become part of the record.

Mr. BURKE. Without objection, that has been made a part of the record.

[The prepared statement follows:]

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM A. VOLLMER, CHIEF, DISABILITY DETERMINATION BUREAU, STATE OF MONTANA

Thank you for granting me the privilege of testifying before your subcommittee on October 3, 1975.

My name is William A. Vollmer. I am the Bureau Chief of the Disability Determination Bureau for the State of Montana. I have held this position for 12 years.

I am reminded of the notice on the corporation bulletin board which said, "The objective of all dedicated company employees should be to thoroughly analyze all situations-anticipate all problems prior to their occurrence and have answers to those problems when called upon." However, when you are up to your neck in alligators, it is difficult to remind yourself that your initial objective was to drain the swamp.

I truly and sincerely hope we can all agree that our initial objective, in the administration of the disability programs under Social Security, is to serve the claimants in the best manner we know how. This includes: quality and timeliness of disability decision, protection of individual's rights and economical administration.

Confusion exists in the minds of claimants from the very beginning of the application process in a District Office. We have a suner communication problem with the claimants and taxpayers we are serving. We have an even greater communication problem within the existing State-Federal structure of Bureau of Disability Insurance and the State DDS components. If you don't believe me, check the Survey of State Disability agencies under the Social Security and SSI programs dated August 1, 1975. By federalizing DDS components and concentrating duties and responsibilities for disability development and adjudication we would bridge many of the communication gaps. By closing these gaps, perhaps we would begin treating the cause of claimant disatisfaction rather than treating the symptoms precipitated by the current system.

This series of hearings concerns primarily appeals procedure legislation. Some of the legislation appears on the surface as positive solutions. However, when examined in depth it appears only to melt the tip of the proverbial iceberg. At the BHA level we are discussing wide sweeping changes and procedures for less than 5 percent of all claimants applying for disability benefits.

The applicability of the Administrative Procedures Act to Supplemental Security Income Disability hearings has to be resolved in favor of the claimant. Place yourself in a claimant's position wherein you have filed concurrent disability claims, only now to have to pursue two separate hearings, one before a Title XVI Hearing Examiner and the other before a Title II Administrative Law Judge. You, as that claimant, should have no less rights than some powerful

corporation like Northwest Airlines asking relief from some other regulatory agency, which permits your claim to be heard before an Administration Law Judge in accordance with thhe Administrative Procedures Act. By legislation you would be assisting in alleviating a very significant communications gap among claimants, as well as eliminating a time consuming hardship in terms of administrative manpower. It is even questioned by some as to whether the Administrative Procedures Act applies if an initial decision has been rendered by a State Agency. If the magnitude and impact of the disability decision comes under the Administrative Procedures Act requiring review by an Administrative Law Judge, then it follows that DDS personnel doing the lower level decisions should be federalized to insure equal pay for equal work.

The informal remand procedure currently being carried out administratively is a positive development. The screening criteria seems to be effective. This represents again an additional work load for the DDS and serves further reason for federalization.

The face to face interview at the reconsideration level, would assist the claimant in having a better understanding as to why the claim was denied initially and without question would assist in closing evidential gaps. This would permit a better decision to be rendered at the reconsideration level. Likewise, the idea of the personal conference as part of the "due process" requirement is positive in perfecting the disability claim. Whether this process will reduce the number of appeals is unknown-I would anticipate an increase. In either of these situations, it is essential that a disability specialist, an employee of Social Security should be discussing the claimant's Social Security or SSI disability claim.

The majority of all reconsideration decisions are completed in 90 days. However, I am opposed to time limits at either the Reconsideration level or Appeals level. There is no way we can put time limits in our requests to the medical community. This is an approach that would seriously disrupt our medical relationships. The other factor for an unusual delay in a claimant is usually the lack of claimant's cooperation. Does this legislation imply that we will be rewarding a claimant because he has purposely delayed development on his claim? If we are truly sincere in agreeing that our initial objectives include: (1) Quality and timeliness of disability decision at whatever level;

(2) Protection of individual claimant rights, whether in benefit status or not; and

(3) Economical Administration;

Then we must address the solution of insuring that communication gaps are closed by streamlining the total adjudication process by the Congressional action of federalizing the State DDS components.

Attachment.

ATTACHMENT

JUSTIFICATION FOR FEDERALIZATION OF STATE DDS' COMPONENTS

1. State agency DDS personnel administer a federal disability program, technical and adjudicative in scope. The original premise of utilizing state rehabilitation relationship with the medical community is obsolete. State Rehabilitative programs dealing with the medical community now utilize the relationship established by the Disability Determination Service (DDS) to administer Title II and Title XVI.

2. If federalized, the administrative conflict between the federal Social Security Disability program and the state administered Disability Determination programs would end, because only one agency would be supplying administrative direction. For example, even though federal authorization and requests for state personnel to attend training sessions, management meetings, etc., may have to be obtained, some states have prohibited out-of-state attendance at Social Security sponsored meetings. These meetings are very effective in improving the examiners' and the clericals' professional competence by exchange of technical data and other knowledge needed for proper effectuation of this federal program.

3. All Disability program information and instructions for Social Security Titles II and XVI are supplied by the Bureau of Disability Insurance, SSA. State DDS personnel are required by terms of the Federal-State contract to follow program direction; however, any issue of personnel classifications and salaries is considered solely a state responsibility. The Bureau of Disability Insurance cannot expect constant high quality program performance by disregarding wages of the people who do the job at the state level.

95-762 O-75-33